The original title of this post is “Congratulations, Wednesday Team,” but it had to be modified because it sounds showbiz, closely resembling the Wednesday Group of Kuya Germ’s That’s Entertainment. Anyway, congratulations to the members of our Wednesday Team at the U.P.-Office of Legal Aid (OLA):
Paula Gan
Paul Sorino
Judy Repol
Abraham Agamata
Dan Antonio
Jennifer Balba
Faye Batocael-Domingo
Kristina Castaneda
Julie Del Rosario
Maria Isabel Llave
Sandra Luna
Kristina Manalang
Hyacinth Rafael
Maria Lourdes Sabundayo
I’m confident you’ll make us proud, counsels. See you in court.
Related posts:
- Results of the 2007 Bar Exams Released: 1,289 new lawyers
- 2008 Bar Exams: Congratulations to the 1,310 who Passed
- MCLE Compliance for New Lawyers
- Why lawyers should never ask a Question if they are not prepared for the Answer
- Bar Examinees of 2009: Congratulations and God Bless
- Congratulations, Chief Justice Reynato Puno!
- The waiting game (again)
by m
03 Apr 2008 at 13:02
congrats…
by alpha_mike
03 Apr 2008 at 15:03
Di ako graduate ng UP Law, pero sa UP Law Center ako nag-review kaya baka nakita ko yung iba sa kanila. Anyway…
CONGRATULATIONS sa mga worthy Isko ng Bayan!
by mvgraglaw
04 Apr 2008 at 04:53
Congrats to all!
by mvgraglaw
04 Apr 2008 at 04:53
mannygragasin.co.cc
by vince
04 Apr 2008 at 06:44
Congrats to all who passed the bar. However I wish the result would have sticked to 5% passing rate rather than increasing it and having a stigma of batch of “hilot”. The very unusual and seemingly intriguing decision of SC resulted to frowns and speculation. It seems that the desicion is not applicable to the general population of examinees but catered only to the few. Isn’t it questionable that out of the 8 subjects, only 3 of which were adjusted? Why? if they really want to consider the examinees as a whole, they should have adjusted all the grade of the subjects. thus, all must be reduced to 45% and not only the criminal, civil and labor subjects. It must be all or none!. Who among the examinees must have beeen favored because they have below 50% grade to these subjects?. How about those who took the bar last year who got 74.90% but failed? Don’t you think its unfair? this year’s result made lawyers having a passing grade of 70% but those who got higher grade last year does not have atty before their name. What is wrong of passing only 258 individual than making it more than a thousand but full of doubts? Isn’t more acceptable than having an end result of doubting the system of the BAR exams and worst, the examiners and the SC itself because of their recent decision? It seems that no matter how a barrister prepares for the bar there is always uncertainty of passing because of varrying system of the BAR exams. How I wish that the chairmen would get examiners, who would not be that ego-centric, thinking they alone can supply a good answer to BAr questions to the effect that they give a very low grade thus making a DQ. Whew what kind of system do we have to expect by following years. My salute to Justice Azcuna for proposing that the original number of passers be declared successful though out numbered during deliberation. My congratulations to the very lucky passers.
Just an opinion and observation!
by m
04 Apr 2008 at 09:20
“…thus, all must be reduced to 45% and not only the criminal, civil and labor subjects. It must be all or none!. Who among the examinees must have beeen favored because they have below 50% grade to these subjects?.” ——- i agree
by alpha_mike
04 Apr 2008 at 10:55
Let me repost what I have said in the other blog entries of Atty. Fred (with some additions):
I am insulted to those thinking that we’re low quality soon-to-be lawyers, or is a weak batch, just because a 70% average was considered to have “passed”.
We should realize that no less than the SC recognized that the manner in which the papers were checked was “unusually strict”, as stated by Justice Azcuna in the press-con, prompting the Supreme Court [using it’s plenary power to make rules and regulate the practice of law in the Philippines, as provided in our Constitution] to consider and adopt 70% as the passing average for last year’s BarEx.
In the entire history of the Philippine BarEx, no national passing percentage has gone down below 16.59% (1999). Getting a national passing percentage of only 5% will clearly denote that something went terribly wrong.
Aside from the SC, through the Chairman of the BarEx, there are only two factors that may cause such low a national passing rate: either the examinees are just dumb poor, or the examiner, through his questions and manner of appreciation and checking did something $&!%… And I doubt our batch is that horrible that only 5% of us can hit the normal passing average of 75% (and our topnotcher only managed to hit 83.55% beating the all-time low of 84.10% [1920]) knowing that since 1901, all batches get at least 16.59% (1999) national passing percentage.
Also, the insinuation that the decision of the SC was for the purpose of serving the interest of some select few is unacceptable. What’s the proof? Because only 3 subjects was given a lower DQ quota? Because the past BarEx examinees did not get the same ruling in the deliberations? The reason why those 3 subjects were handpicked to be given lower DQ quota was because the SC thinks that the checking in those subjects was “unusually strict”, while in the other subjects, we can say that the checking was of the “regular” type.
So, I say, and it is just proper, that for all intents and purposes, the 70% passing average used in the 2007 BarEx is the same as the regular 75% passing percentage used in the past BarEx.
70% (for 2007 BarEx) = 75% (in the past BarEx)
Just think that despite the strict checking, the SC saw that the examinees have the brains and skills to pass the exmas (Who knows, SC is only really expecting the examinees to get an average of 70%?)
Well, nevertheless, I believe that reform should be done in the conduct of the BarEx, among others, reform in the kind of questions being asked (Oh please, test the aspiring lawyers’ aptitude in the laws that they will be using once they are already in practice [if ever they wil pass], including the basics in some of the less prominent aspects of the subjects of the BarEx, and not questions on laws that they will not even encounter in their lifetime as a lawyer… it just does not serve the purpose of the BarEx), reform in the manner of giving questions like considering non-extensive essay type of questions [but in a way that examinees’ reasoning skills can still be tested] to avoid the very sad reality where even the most brilliant law graduates won’t be able to pass just because their penmanship is bad [hello, as if lawyers are gonna use their own penmanship to make their pleadings, etc.], and reform for a less subjective way of checking the answer
Just a thought…
by alpha_mike
04 Apr 2008 at 13:32
“Finally, the low overall passing rate does not mean that the 2007 examinees were inferior. The appreciation of answers, that is to say, how the answers are graded, depends largely on the philosophy and approach of the examiner.” _Dean Raul Pangalangan, Examiner, Polical, 2007 Law RBar Exam
by bluebloodedeagle
06 Apr 2008 at 23:39
“My salute to Justice Azcuna for proposing that the original number of passers be declared successful though out numbered during deliberation. ”
-Vince, you’re comments are highly speculative. I work for the office of Justice Azcuna, and according to him, the decision was unanimous among the justices to lower the passing percentage. The good justice (Azcuna) was merely against the rechecking of papers because according to him, examiners have always been given considerable leeway in the grading of exams. Hence, your assertions were dead wrong.
“Don’t you think its unfair? this year’s result made lawyers having a passing grade of 70% but those who got higher grade last year does not have atty before their name. ”
-Again, you better check your facts. Last year’s batch of lawyers (the 2006 examinees) had examiners who were considerate enough to give out decent grades to counter their relatively difficult exams. The Crim Law examiner of 2006 actually passed more than half of those who took his exam while the Tax law examiner was lenient enough to consider “off-target” answers to his controversial questions.
Unfortunately for this batch of examinees, three examiners were quite strict in their grading. Imagine the exasperation on the part of Azcuna when he heard that a “massacre” was happening in the three subjects. While he gave out instructions to correct the papers strictly, he never meant for the corrections to be done unfairly.
“Congrats to all who passed the bar. However I wish the result would have sticked to 5% passing rate rather than increasing it and having a stigma of batch of “hilot”. ”
-I don’t know what you mean by accusing this batch of being a product of “hilot.” Hence, I’ll assume for the sake of argumentation that you are referring to the fact that a lot of this batch of examinees were the children of prominent individuals (like anna devanadera). I think you have to be enlightened: all the examinees mentioned by newspapers are actually graduates of UP, Ateneo or San Beda. These schools have always been at the forefront of legal education. Thus, barristers coming from these schools have always had the luxury of sitting in the exams with very favorable odds. While I’m not saying that examinees from other schools are inferior to examinees coming from these three institutions, what I am merely saying is that probability-wise, students from these institutions have the odds stacked in their favor more than any other examinee from other institutions.
“if they really want to consider the examinees as a whole, they should have adjusted all the grade of the subjects. thus, all must be reduced to 45% and not only the criminal, civil and labor subjects. It must be all or none!. Who among the examinees must have beeen favored because they have below 50% grade to these subjects?. ”
- As I’ve discussed earlier, the main reason why only three subjects were adjusted was because of the misfortune of this batch to have three examiners who unfairly corrected their exam papers. I would assume that a lot of examinees would have passed if not for the unusually strict correction done in the three subjects. If you notice, the SC adjusted the DQ and the passing grade by five points. Reason: The SC justices assumed, based on their experience as former professors of the law, that if the papers were correctly and fairly checked, almost all examinees would have garnered at least an additional five points.
“My congratulations to the very lucky passers.”
-I’m lucky that I passed the bar in 2006(took it on September 2005), because I don’t have the burden of dealing with “unlucky” and bitter people like you.
Anyway, CONGRATULATIONS TO BATCH 2008! All of you deserve to be called ATTY! Don’t think for one instance that you were merely lucky! Your hard work and determination finally paid off! CONGRATS to my new Companeros and Companeras!
by URIEL
10 Apr 2008 at 10:11
Its insane to make a general statement that the 2008 bar passers are batch of hilot.Maybe those who got grades below 75 but not less than 70 but not those whose grades are 75 and up.Besides justice Azcuna already explain why the COURT have to reduced the passing %(you should read].
A lawyer should uphold at all times the dignity and integrity of the legal profession….and of the COURT.
Itigil na natin yung mga negative comments about the 08 bar result at sa halip magtulongan tayo para mapapatibay pa natin ang legal profession at respeto sa korte.
by Judy Alice Repol
16 Apr 2008 at 14:48
Hi Sir ! Thank you so much for the congratulatory greetings =) your site has been a source of information and humor (esp the comments and forums sections ) to my office mates and me while we were waiting for the bar results. Grabe, ibang level na ang popularity mo sa blogosphere ha! I even read comments of your “fans” asking you to post naman your pics so that they can see you “in the flesh” hehe. Of course it’s a source of pride to me that naging OLA supervising lawyer ko ang local internet celebrity na ito! hehe. seriously, thanks and see you soon =)
by Atty. Fred
17 Apr 2008 at 06:43
You’re very much welcome, Judy, er, Atty. Repol. Haha Local internet celebrity, you say? Nah, not me – you guys are the celebrities. This is your moment of glory . . . unless someone objects. I’m proud of the fact that you guys are the first batch of lawyers under me. See you in court.
by Jennifer M. Balba
25 Jun 2008 at 09:08
Hello sir, found this while searching my name sa google.. i do that when im bored…
thanks for the greetings and i did not know this is your site pla? Some of my friends pointed me to this forum and I have checked this several times before for updates and some tips.. i guess i have another thing to thank you for pala. Thanks! 
by Jennifer M. Balba
25 Jun 2008 at 09:12
Hehe.. that last message sounded stupid kasi meron pala kau malaki picture sa taas…. promise.. di ko yan nakita before… di na ko kasi punta homepage e… diretso na sa links na sinesend nila…
Salamat uli..